Faith in permanent death

[Koldo]

That doesn't mean those possibilities aren't true. All it means is that we can't tell. It may happen that in the future, through technology, consciousness may be proven to exist beyond death.

To put your faith in permanent death, I think, is not reason. Simply faith. And it is faith that is put into one of the most hopeless ideas out there.

If an atheist does not believe in God due to the lack of evidence to support its existence ( this is the cause for many atheists, albeit not for everyone ) , then why would the same atheist believe in an afterlife considering the equal lack lack of evidence to support it?

 

[PolyHedral]

That is a fallacy, nonsensical, and philosophical.

Please share with me how this works. How consciousness is computational.

Second, show me how the human brain and a computer's processor are identical in how they process information.

The fundamental laws of physics are simulatable. It is therefore a simple isomorphism to treat the universe as a computer.

As for the second point, this: Artificial neural network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Penumbra]

A position that is not based on faith should have two main characteristics, as far as I can tell.
-It minimizes the number of absolute claims.
-It makes the fewest possible number of assumptions.

Although nobody has reasonably claimed (and shown to be able to support their claim), that they fully understand consciousness and can explain how it works, there are indeed a number of things that can be observed about consciousness.

When a person dies, they cease all activity and their body begins to break down into its various components. Combining this observation with other observations such as,
-Memories can be damaged or erased due to brain injury.
-Personality can be changed due to changes to the brain.
-There are no proven instances of consciousness existing outside of a brain or other similar machine.
-Awareness could potentially be argued to be meaningless or non-existent without the existence of memories and systems for interpreting data.
-Chemicals or processes can render a conscious person into an unconscious one.

Sure, people can propose non-falsifiable ideas, like those of a simulation, or those of altruistic aliens, or concepts that seem to make a lot of assumptions about how the continuity of conscious works, but they are simply that: non-evidenced and yet non-falsifiable ideas. They all seem to rely on a number of either absolute claims or assumptions that the simple concept of death does not rely on.

 

[839311]

Things like personality and memories have been shown to be dependent on the brain. Brain damage can alter or destroy them. As for consciousness or awareness, changing the brain makes a person unaware of what is going on, which is good for things like surgery.

Lets grant for the sake of argument that consciousness is indeed entirely tied to the brain. Brains are possible to exist, clearly. Why couldn't brains be reformed in a scenario like eternal return?

Prior to our birth we have no recollection of anything. Its almost as if we didn't exist. Yet, here we are. How does that happen? Why can't it happen again if we assume a scenario like eternal return?

 

[Penumbra]

Lets grant for the sake of argument that consciousness is indeed entirely tied to the brain. Brains are possible to exist, clearly. Why couldn't brains be reformed in a scenario like eternal return?

Prior to our birth we have no recollection of anything. Its almost as if we didn't exist. Yet, here we are. How does that happen? Why can't it happen again if we assume a scenario like eternal return?

We had a discussion on this before. As I had stated, if a brain were to be reformed, why should I assume it's the same consciousness?

Suppose we made two completely identical and yet separate brains. Would they naturally share consciousness since they are identical, or would they still be separate, because they each have all of their own systems?

Its almost as if we didn't exist.

Or, it is that we didn't exist.

 

[839311]

There's zero reason to think consciousness or anything else survives death. Then again, I'm a rationalist, and I understand that this isn't a worldview suitable for most people. I understand it's pleasant to fantasize that we might continue to exist after dying, but there's no rational basis for such comforting wishes.

Your idea of what rationality is disappointing. You dismiss possibilities out of hand, based on nothing more than your irrational certainty in a bleak fantasy that when were dead its all over, forever.

 

[PolyHedral]

Your idea of what rationality is disappointing. You dismiss possibilities out of hand, based on nothing more than your irrational certainty in a bleak fantasy that when were dead its all over, forever.

There is a dragon in my garage.

 

[839311]

Or, it is that we didn't exist.

Yet, here we are. After were dead we may cease to exist. But then, sometime in the future, POOF! We may exist once more! How can you be sure this doesn't happen?

Doesn't the fact of our existence count as evidence for the possibility that we may exist again? I think so.

 

[Penumbra]

Yet, here we are. After were dead we may cease to exist. But then, sometime in the future, POOF! We may exist once more!

For this to be a more rigorous argument or piece of evidence, it needs to be fleshed out more.

How can you be sure this doesn't happen?

I rarely say I'm sure of anything.

I do, however, say I don't believe certain things, or that I don't see things to have much evidence or that they rely on so many assumptions or claims.

Doesn't the fact of our existence count as evidence for the possibility that we may exist again? I think so.

I don't see how.

 

[science_is_my_god]

I wonder. If consciousness really is just a chemical reaction created in the brain, we should then be able to create a consciousness by using the same chemical environment found in the brain. I understand chemists aren't there yet, but if the day does come where this science actually is repeatable (like all science should be), then I hope to be 6 feet under. Afterlife, or no afterlife.

 

[839311]

I'm sure this means something in your head, but not to the rest of us. Do you mind restructuring this into a logical, coherent argument or idea?

Perhaps you are just too deluded by your faith to be able to acknowledge reason when it hits you in the face. Sigh, atheists accuse religious people of being deluded. It works the other way too.

 

[839311]

I don't see how.

Well, say your right and we didn't exist prior to being born here. Where did we come from? We can just as easily go backwards in time prior to our birth as we can after our death. In either case, we don't exist. Yet, the possibility is there that we can be alive, say, as a human or maybe something else. And then poof! Your born!

 

[Otherright]

The fact is that we don't know what humans will be able to do in the future with technology. Perhaps we will be able to simulate an human consciousness.

Imagine people from 1000 years ago being told they would be able to communicate with another person in the other side of the globe nearly instantly with a device that fits in your hand. Most would say that is impossible. And here we are.

Also, do you mean the turing test?
The turing test does not ensure that computers will never reach consciousness.

No, I mean the philosophical subset derived from the test.

Maybe, but it won't be genuine consciousness. It will only be able to solve problems as programmed. You can get it so complex that it might be hard to tell the difference, but its still not genuine consciousness.

 

[PolyHedral]

No, I mean the philosophical subset derived from the test.

Maybe, but it won't be genuine consciousness. It will only be able to solve problems as programmed. You can get it so complex that it might be hard to tell the difference, but its still not genuine consciousness.

Watson disagrees about the programming thing.

 

[Otherright]

The fundamental laws of physics are simulatable. It is therefore a simple isomorphism to treat the universe as a computer.

As for the second point, this: Artificial neural network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First ANNs aren't identical to how a human brain processes information. They still have to break down and recompile the information. Look at the section on real life applications, do you see anything in there that denotes genuine intelligence.

 

[Koldo]

No, I mean the philosophical subset derived from the test.

Maybe, but it won't be genuine consciousness. It will only be able to solve problems as programmed. You can get it so complex that it might be hard to tell the difference, but its still not genuine consciousness.

I may be wrong, but i don't think the point of the turing test is to check whether a computer/program has acquired a genuine consciousness. For a first we would have to define clearly what a genuine consciousness is, and how we could possibly verify its existence.

The point of the turing test is to check whether a computer/program can properly emulate human responses.

 

[Otherright]

Its just a metaphor used in cognitive psychology guys. Its not meant to actually be done. Look here are some of the top problems in generating AI as far as physical requirements.

Brains are analogue; computers are digital. This is the only one we've discussed thus far. They process information differently. This alone is going to make genuine intelligence in computing impossible. Now look at the rest of them.

The brain uses content-addressable memory.
The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial.
Processing speed is not fixed in the brain; there is no system clock.
Short-term memory is not like RAM.
No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind.
Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates.
Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain.
The brain is a self-organizing system.
Brains have bodies.

 

[Otherright]

Its just a metaphor used in cognitive psychology guys. Its not meant to actually be done. Look here are some of the top problems in generating AI as far as physical requirements.

Brains are analogue; computers are digital. This is the only one we've discussed thus far. They process information differently. This alone is going to make genuine intelligence in computing impossible. Now look at the rest of them.

The brain uses content-addressable memory.
The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial.
Processing speed is not fixed in the brain; there is no system clock.
Short-term memory is not like RAM.
No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind.
Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates.
Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain.
The brain is a self-organizing system.
Brains have bodies.

If we can't get past the first one, how do you expect to fix the rest.

 

[Penumbra]

Its just a metaphor used in cognitive psychology guys. Its not meant to actually be done. Look here are some of the top problems in generating AI as far as physical requirements.

Brains are analogue; computers are digital. This is the only one we've discussed thus far. They process information differently. This alone is going to make genuine intelligence in computing impossible. Now look at the rest of them.

The brain uses content-addressable memory.
The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial.
Processing speed is not fixed in the brain; there is no system clock.
Short-term memory is not like RAM.
No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind.
Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates.
Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain.
The brain is a self-organizing system.
Brains have bodies.

You're assuming that computers hundreds of years from now would be comparable to our current ones. What leads you to believe they should share any or all of these characteristics?

Your argument for why computers cannot have real consciousness is along the lines me claiming that since I cannot slam dunk a basket ball, nobody can, because it's a fundamental impossibility for my body to do it.

 

[Otherright]

Watson disagrees about the programming thing.

Oh yeah, the Jeopardy machine. You call that intelligence? Its programmed with simple information, recall perimeters.